Battle over future of science classes looms in Iowa, U.S.

Some fear the state could lose local control if new, national standards are adopted

Jan. 25, 2014

North High School science instructor Melissa Spencer, left, helps Larissa Lopez, 14, learn to measure force during a lesson on Jan. 8. Under the Next Generation Science Standards, students would learn about engineering, technology and applications of science. They'd be expected to show their knowledge by conducting experiments, building models and designing engineering projects. / Mary Willie/The Register

North High School student Latron Hampton, 14, learns to measure force in his ninth-grade science lab. / Mary Willie/The Register

About the science standards

WHAT THEY DO: The Next Generation Science Standards would change the way students learn science. Each learning expectation weaves together core scientific principles, scientific or engineering practices and “cross-cutting concepts,” such as the idea of cause and effect. WHAT THEY REPLACE: If adopted, the Next Generation Science Standards would replace the Iowa Core’s science standards, which were adopted in 2008 with an implementation deadline of 2014-15. WHO DEVELOPED THEM: The standards were developed by a coalition of 26 states with input from several national groups, including the National Research Council, the National Science Teachers Association and the American Association for the Advancement of Science. Writers of the standards included educators, researchers and Nobel Prize laureates. Achieve, a nonprofit based in Washington, D.C., managed development of the standards. The organization also oversaw the creation of math and reading standards under the Common Core. — Mary Stegmeir

Hot topics: Climate change, evolution

AT ISSUE: The inclusion of climate change and evolution in the Next Generation Science Standards has sparked controversy in other states that have moved to adopt the learning goals for their students. APPROACH: The standards treat evolution as fundamental to the life sciences and also state that humans have had “major effects” on global warming. KENTUCKY BATTLE: The most passionate debates around those issues have been centered in Kentucky. That state’s board of education voted in June to adopt the standards. A legislative rule-making committee in September rejected the standards, noting they didn’t reflect the views of state residents. Kentucky Gov. Steve Beshear, a Democrat, has said he will override that decision. LOCAL CONTROL: Iowa opponents say their primary concern regarding adoption of the Next Generation Science Standards is a loss of local control over schools. CONTENT CONCERNS: Battle lines may also be drawn over content areas. Jill Jennings, a Spirit Lake mother of three, said she takes issue with the amount of attention devoted to global warming. “I think they are really trying to make it look like humans are in charge or to blame for any kind of catastrophic event that happens,” she said. — Mary Stegmeir

More

ADVERTISEMENT

Apush to overhaul statewide science standards has prompted concerns that the move would erode local control of education and narrow the scope of what students learn.

Iowa is one of 26 states that helped develop Next Generation Science Standards, national guidelinesthat outline what all children should know to be scientifically literate by the time they reach adulthood.

The standards emphasize depth of instruction and mandate hands-on experiments and engineering projects. Many educators believe students will benefit from the approach.

But some teachers worry that the standards sacrifice breadth for depth. Other critics view them as an intrusion on what they say should be local decisions. And perennial controversies over the reality of climate change and teaching of evolution have stirred opposition in Iowa and elsewhere.

“Our No. 1 concern is that this is nationalizing education,” said Jill Jennings, a Spirit Lake parent and substitute teacher who served on a state task force assigned to study the standards.

With Iowa a governing member in developing the standards, its leaders promised to “give serious consideration to adopting” them.

The state board of education will consider the proposal later this year, but passage is not assured.

Regardless of whether new standards are adopted, changes for science education are likely on the horizon in Iowa.

The Legislature has staked out science education as a priority, appropriating $4.7 million for science, technology, engineering and math instruction, commonly referred to as STEM, in the fiscal year that began July 1.

Fewer than half of all ACT test takers in the state’s class of 2012 scored well enough on the science portion of the exam to be considered ready for college-level work in the subject, data show.

“We want the most robust science standards we can get for Iowa’s kids,” said Brad Buck, Iowa Department of Education director. “... We want them to think more like scientists, as well as be thinking more about statewide careers in STEM.”

But there are signs of increased resistance to standards set at state and national levels.

Existing academic standards, passed in 2008 by the Iowa State Board of Education, have come under criticism over the past year.

The loudest and most consistent voices of opposition belong to conservatives at the state and national level. They’ve found unlikely allies in some leaders in local teacher unions, who worry that such standards will shrink the curriculum and give rise to further standardized testing.

If adopted, the Next Generation Science Standards would replace the Iowa Core science standards, scheduled for full implementation in 2014-15.

“I think people are just starting to wake up,” said Jennings, the Spirit Lake parent.

Standards promote hands-on learning

The brewing conflict is somewhat predictable in a state that was last in the nation to adopt academic standards, experts say.

Iowa held out in part because of the same local-control concerns now being raised about science standards.

But some Iowa leaders say boosting student achievement requires a culture change. The multimillion-dollar education reform bill passed in May by state lawmakers seeks to improve student learning by bolstering the quality of instruction in classrooms across the state.

Revamping science education could have a similar effect, supporters say.

Iowa’s existing standards were an “excellent first attempt” at raising quality, but are “too broad,” Roosevelt High School educator Jessica Gogerty said.

“The variability is huge — even from school to school within the same district,” said Gogerty, who was honored in 2010 with the prestigious President’s Award for Excellence in Math and Science Teaching. “The variability is vast as to what would meet standards and what would not.”

As a result, the quality of science instruction differs throughout the state, she said.

Adopting the Next Generation Science Standards would mean that all students — regardless of where they attend school — would be expected to know and demonstrate a basic understanding of key concepts in the physical, life, earth and space sciences, Gogerty said.

Students would also learn about engineering, technology and applications of science. They’d be expected to show their knowledge by conducting experiments, building models and designing engineering projects.

Best practices already call for lessons to include those activities, a technique that Iowa science teachers say improves learning.

Des Moines student Latron Hampton benefits from such instruction at North High School. The 14-year-old freshman said he’s logged plenty of time in the lab as part of his physical science class.

“Science makes you think, and I enjoy thinking,” Hampton said.

Proponents say the new standards would better encourage that approach to learning.

Fewer topics would be covered under the proposal.

But national experts say the reasoning skills students gain early in life would make it easier for young people to understand and explore scientific ideas and concepts in their daily lives.

“One of the problems we’ve had in science education is that we cover way too many topics in too shallow of depth,” said Jim Pellegrino, a professor of education and co-director of the University of Illinois at Chicago’s Learning Sciences Research Institute.

But concentrating Iowa’s science curriculum — and doing so using a set of standards produced by a national coalition — is exactly what has critics concerned.

“I kind of think of it as micromanaging the classroom,” said Leslie Beck, a Waukee mother who home-schools her children. “Standards are great as goals for teachers, as things to strive for. But when you tie standardized tests to the standards, and then you tie teacher performance to the test results of the students in their class ... then you’ve got a classroom full of test prep.”

Eight states adopt new science standards

Proponents of the standards are unequivocal: Curriculum will remain a local decision in Iowa, they say.

The standards, which took more than three years to write, were crafted using guidance from the National Research Council.

Iowa leaders say they are waiting for guidance from a task force assigned to study the issue before they make a decision about adopting the standards here.

The 28-person group was formed in August. During an October meeting, the majority of task force members voted to recommend adoption.

But hurdles remain both in and out of the classroom.

More than 500 people have signed an online petition launched in September to stop the Common Core and Next Generation Science Standards in Iowa, citing the local control concerns.

At the same time, some science teachers open to the idea of new standards worry that the lessons they now view as critical to student learning may disappear or be scaled back.

North High School teacher John Chai and his ninth-grade students spent several days this fall learning about electric circuits, a concept that made him fall in love with science as child. Although he believes students should be allowed to explore concepts more deeply — a key philosophy of Next Generation Science Standards — he also worries about what might be left out.

“Electric circuits are nowhere in the physics (standards),” Chai said. “I don’t think that means you’re not allowed to teach them, but there’s such a large amount of other material that some things are probably going to get left behind.”

Such concerns are valid and will need to be discussed if Iowa moves toward adoption, said Jerrid Kruse, an assistant education professor at Drake University in Des Moines.

Ultimately, he thinks the Next Generation Science Standards could be a powerful tool, particularly for elementary school children.

The standards tell teachers what students need to be able to know and do at each grade level. In contrast, under the current Iowa Core, science standards are written for students in grades K-2 and 3-5.

That format causes confusion, said Kruse, who served on the state’s science standards task force. Educators often assume the required material was covered by students’ previous teachers or will be addressed in the next grade level up.

Another complicating factor: The state and federal governments use math and reading scores to determine school performance. So teachers have little incentive to carve away instructional time for science, he said.

Only 20 percent of K-3 educators in the U.S. teach science every day, according to a 2012 national survey sponsored by the National Science Foundation.

“For me, the No. 1 thing is: If we want to get more kids interested in learning science, we need to start getting teachers to actually teach science at the elementary school level,” Kruse said.